Really really difficult debate to judge, couldn't get to go into all things I wanted to talk about cos of time but please feel free to reach out and ask questions!
Holy S___t, these guys are getting after it!!!
On a personal note, @jacbenj, one of the points you brought up was that government shouldn’t be involved in the decisions of families whether to have kids or not. However, I think you didn’t look fully into this point of view. The same way the FDA has a standard for medication and for drugs to be put onto the market is the same way the Federal Government would have to be involved in the cloning process if human cloning was made legal. The government would be forced to come up with some standard to legalize and regulate the process. So, the federal government would have their hand all in human cloning, thus still in the family making process.
@the_peoples_champ that's a good point- i'm open to other arguments! however, i'd remember that that's not an argument that isn't made in the debate so it shouldn't count towards your vote :) (also i think this is true but slightly sides off- the government regulates IVF without denying the right of parents to do it if they want, they just guarantee for safety)
great debate @jacbenj thanks for a fun one!!!
@ajgibson0418 yeah thanks v much that was great!!!
Two titanic debates battle it out here. Both fast, both smart, and both coming to win. This tournament is getting tough!Style stuff....@ajgibson0418 has a powerful mind and a forceful voice. I think he could benefit from a little more variation and modulation in his delivery. It's all hard, all loud, all the time. He does it pretty well and is fine to listen to, but it lacks some persuasive power as a result. Especially on an issue that has a lot of moral and ethical overtones.@jacbenj takes this debate a little more slowly and I think, as a result, gives more persuasive and clear claims in general. I felt like Pro was rattling out facts, and Con was putting them into context for us so we could make judgments. Con said more with fewer words. Con came into this one in a purely reflexive position, I try to avoid that on Con myself as I like to control the story of the debate, but he does it well here even though he is entirely arguing on Pro's chosen ground.Blow by blow as I heard it...Pro establishes some good basic arguments against cloning humans, though they are very focused on the current state of science. He also has the identity argument.Con goes right for the future tense case and points out tech gets better and cheaper eroding the effectiveness and cost. He establishes that cloning could be simply a matter of luxury choice. And he has a bit of a personal grand slam against the identity argument as he is a "clone."Pro returns but didn't seem to understand Con's future tense contention at first. But he then comes around with some projected future costs. He covers the affordability in the future and has evidence, but I'm not sure why I should ban something just because some people can't afford it. Since this human cloning is not therapeutic, then what's the impact of it being a luxury good?Pro further works to undermine the difference between clones and twins, and he does a good job. While its a great argument for Con, Pro is right to say it's not the same.Con does a good explainer on how therapeutic cloning impacts the viability and cost of human cloning. Pro doesn't yet have an answer for this. (typing this as I listen). Poor argument presumes that cloning is worthwhile. Uses cell phone example to enhance luxury goods. Con addresses the clone/twin issue, acknoledges the difference but asks, how different? Con introduces a story where cloning could be a solution to parents wanting a child but having genetic reasons not to.Pro is banning cloning, not research (what good would that be?). Pro extends his cost argument but tries to turn it on treatment. But human cloning isn't a treatment so far as this debate has gone. He then goes into a section on possible harms of cloning and attacking some of the possible reasons, though not the story Con presents.Con starts out by casting a lot of doubt on Pros cons on cloning. He doesn't destroy them, but he does cast a shadow on each and offers counter views where cloning could well be beneficial. Con introduces embryonic cloning as a needed step for therapeutic cloning. (or perhaps I just missed it before?) Pro attacks the embryonic story, I'm inclined to throw it out since both pro and I found it new. He takes a shot based on abortion and therapeutic cloning... Not sure. Pro tries to extend his first argument, which seems dead to me by this stage. He does try to undermine Pro's benefits of cloning, OK, I'm questioning. I'm not especially persuaded by these cons. They are real, but kind of weak to me when we are talking about banning something entirely and forever.Con talks about how cancer research has yielded results to counter the "doesn't work" argument. Extends benefit for parents making good choices for creating children. Extends genetic abnormality and the existing challenges of children. Parents have the right to their own genetic material, basic reproductive right. Decision time...This is a case where I think my own original bias on the topic is part of my decision. I tend to think that any outright ban on potentially useful science is an over-reaction. The "Never" clause in the resolution is a real stickler.Without that word, Pro makes a pretty hard to beat case as his first harm is brutal and factual. But its about now, and Con rightly attacks that with persuasive arguments and examples. That left Pro with his weaker second and third contentions. I found the second was largely destroyed by the luxury goods argument as I never understood the human cloning at stake here to be about a medical treatment of any kind, just a reproductive option for the rich, and not the only option around. Then ther is the thrid, and here, both sides about went to a draw on the good and bad of cloning for reproduction. That's where my bias comes in, on equal ground, I will say no ban.Thus I vote Con here. Con needed to meet or beat all Pro lines since he had no case of his own, and he did that in my view.
@sigfried I will keep my opinion to myself until judging is gone but would love to ask you questions afterwards cause I have a couple things that strike me weird here
@sigfried thanks for the feedback!!
@ajgibson0418 Sounds good. I mostly do these so folks get an insight into what at least one listener was thinking. I'm always happy to hash out the details. I've even been known to change my vote.I think in this debate I was very inclined towards the Con position, to begin with so you had a much harder challenge to make me see things from your perspective and the Con a much easier time to get me to use his filter.And since you are both crushingly good debaters, it really does come down to those kinds of biases and viewpoints influencing which side we found compelling when both clashed on every single point.Ironically, great debates make it much harder to be un-biased in deciding.
@sigfried I understand what you mean with your personal bias. I tried hard to remove my bias completely out of my decision. For me my personal bias was naturally on the "Pro" side. And for me to vote Con he would have to completely shut down the Pro's arguments of birth defects and some others. And he didn't convince me that there is a benefit worth the experiment of creating humans with man made birth defects. Doctors never get things right the first or second or even third time. I have more reasons why I voted Pro but am just going to stop at the first.
Wow, this debate got a lot of votes very quickly. Awesome! I can't wait to see how the RJs come down on this one. I'll be watching carefully.